Mind you this is my own personal opinion and not necessarily that of Mike or Techdirt.
I will assume by "stake holders" you mean "corporate shareholders". On that assumption I urge you to use a new tool called google and do a search of the term "Occupy Wall Street". If the shareholders are not demanding that the labels conform to the demands of their customers and the market, then thats their problem. If those shareholders fail to see a return on their investment and lose all their money, well too bad for them. I, at least, couldnt care any less!!!
"When the Internet was new, its nature bred the protective philosophy of embracing anonymity as a counterweight to the potential for sacrificing some of your personal privacy to participate."
I think she also forgot that newspapers, magazines. ect (used to) do the exact same thing with "letter to the editor" and even articals (sources). People used anonymity to complain about, inform others of, or just comment on local issues and didnt want the backlash from the ones deemed at fault or their supporters.
The internet didnt "breed" this. Its been around longer than she has. Her starting off her article with this intellectually dishonest statement just shows how the entire article should be disregarded as a culmination of false statements. It also shows how she has absolutely no credibility as an "editorial" writer. The people in charge should also be scrutinized for their allowing such "editorials" to be published under their name. Their allowing this brings into question their credibility to convey "truth in reporting".
So with this in mind My opinion is, why bother reading anything she writes and more importantly, anything published by The Washington Times.
"So what? This is its prerogative. Don't like it? Take your business elsewhere."
And thats the decision that the customers (and investors) are making. If it was no big deal to Hastings, as implied by your "so what?" comment, then he wouldn't be making this pathetic "apology" to the remaining customers. I would hope that your not as clueless as you seem by implying that you dont need customers in order to have a business.
When I first heard about the "apology" letter I had hopes that they got the message from all the consumer backlash. That was short lived after reading the actual letter. Thanks Mike for posting the link. While Hastings seems to get the point that they did something wrong, He still doesnt comprehend what they actually did that everyone is complaining about.
!!!ITS THE PRICING STUPID!!!
No one really cares that you didnt tell them about the price hike BEFORE you did it. They care that you HIKED THE PRICES.
This "apology" letter just shows his continued ignorance and wont fix this. Using this as an opportunity to announce more anti-customer actions is just insulting. Splitting the company in two might be good for the company (or future companies), but its not good for the customer. Customers want convenience and low prices. Failure to recognize this will result in the failure of both companies, divisions ,subsidiaries, whatever.
The price increasing may be due to the studios, but the latest move is all theirs. Not inter-linking accounts and/or websites is only going to result in even more backlash.
But the point is the same. They are just as guilty as the Government for violating the 4 amendment. What is supposed to happen is when congress passes a law it is subject to judicial review and up to the Supreme Court to establish its constitutionality. What they are attempting is to circumvent the constitution itself on checks and balances. By not letting these cases go to trial and they are avoiding the Supreme Court and the constitutional question. All this under the guise of national security.
One thing that you may not realize is that by the telcos NOT refusing to do it, they then become complicit in the illegal act. I believe (but could be wrong) that in are current military, if an illegal order is given, it is the persons duty to disobey it. An example could be; If an officer in the military orders the torcher or murder of innocent people, the subordinates that performed the act are then guilty of the same crimes as the one giving the order. This is how it worked for the Nuremberg trials.
Your the one being silly. You are correct that the Evans did not literally remove the original from public domain 9or the Techdirt site). But, with Evans and/or his publishers claim, they are saying if you go back and get a copy of Mikes original article, then Evans and/or his publisher can sue you for infringement;
"No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form, or by any means; -- electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without permission from the original author."
If this was not the case the last word would be "authors" or "author(s)" since it is a compilation of different works.
This is the only part that Mike has a problem with as I read it, and rightfully so.
As I read it, and Mike can correct me if I'm wrong. Mike is saying that Evans (and everyone) can use, copy, reprint, and profit from the articles he writes for Techdirt without giving credit which,arguably, Evans does do, because they are in the public domain. What is not allowed is for Evans (or anyone) to claim copyright over these same articles as to not allow anyone else to do the same. This is what Attrition is claiming and seems to be substantiated with the copyright notification put forth in the publication. If this is what Evans, and/or his publishers are doing, then that is what constitutes copy-fraud and would essentially be taking the original work(s) out of the framework of public domain. This is one of the abuses of copyright and public domain that Mike writes about all the time.
That kind of makes sense and leads me to believe its all the more reason to leave Netflix alone. Let the consumer backlash dictate to the ISP's what they can and cannot do with usage caps. Also, go after the ISP's for eating up their profits with hugely bloated corporate salaries but not investing more in their own infrastructures.
Maybe its time to abolish more (or all) of the cable/telco monopolies, force free use of the cables (infrastructure), and let others, like Netflix, become internet/content providers themselves. After all, the infrastructure was paid for by the customers, government subsidies, and the allwoing of their monopolies a long time ago
I have to agree with a lot of what you are saying about how the ISP's charge businesses and the consumers for their internet connection. Its kind of similar to how the insurance companies charge you for insurance. The ones who dont use it (make claims), help to subsidize the company for the ones who do (along with the ones making claims paying more).
My question is who are these politicians turned lobbyist lobbying for and why?
Is it the ISP's, (cable companies) who are wanting more Government subsidies for maintaining their cables (Infrastructure), along with help against Netfjix, who is competing with their own streaming on demand services, by increasing "passed on" operating costs for Netflix and thus decreasing their market share?
Or the movie industry, looking for Fee funded subsidies,as a way to put Netflix out of business (or at least pay a lot more), because Netflix is cutting into profits that they feel they are entitled to, but dont know how to implement a profitable service for?
Maybe its both. A perfect storm.
Although I like the way Mike is approaching the misleading statements of these politicians/lobbyists, I would really like full disclosure of who they are representing and why.